The Greek Old Calendarists abandoned the Orthodox Church and abandoned Christ. They are worthless apostates and schismatics. They threw their baptisms and chrismations into the trash can. They value their rituals and their calendar more than Christ and the Church.

I wonder, if we ever got together for an oc.net picnic (again), would you say that to the face of an old calendarist? The owner of the forum, Fr. Anastasios, perhaps? Not that I would want to see such a thing, I bring it up only as a remark about civility. Speaking the truth is one thing; being rude (especially to your host, albeit indirectly) is quite another.

So Devin, what exactly is Orthodoxy in your opinion? How does the faith of the Old Calenderists differ from yours?

The Greek Old Calendarists abandoned the Orthodox Church and abandoned Christ. They are worthless apostates and schismatics. They threw their baptisms and chrismations into the trash can. They value their rituals and their calendar more than Christ and the Church.

Orthodoxy is the faith and the Church founded by Christ 2,000 years ago. It is and is within the Orthodox Church, the ONLY true Church.

The Orientals are far closer to us than even the Greek Old Calendarists are.

Devin,

Why is it that you claim the True Church is the church you adhere to and that there is salvation only in the so-called "canonical""orthodox" church, yet you are the ones which accept the ecumenist pan-heresy and are the ones spoiling and Blaspheming the Holy Faith of the Apostles by innovating with heretics? You claim that we are the ones who hate Christ yet you are the ones who have persecuted us because we pray for you. Is this what Christ Taught and Teaches in your church? You ecumenists on one day say things like "where two or three people meet in [Christ's] Name there [Christ] is also" but then say our baptisms and our chrismations are invalid the next simply because we don't agree with you.

Call me a schismatic all you want, I'd much rather be a schismatic than someone who worships your version of Christ

In my experience, you see the most hurtful and often blasphemous statements throughout all these forums. Some threads are pretty good but the reality is "Orthodox" forums hurt the Church much more then they help. It becomes a temple of gossip and very often hateful statements. I have deleted really every one I have joined because the obvious. It is a sad state of affairs when you have untrained and often very passionate people representing the Church. I don't pretend to be qualified even with my theological degree and growing up serving next to my father, who is a priest but you have multitudes who don't mind at all. It is a sad state of affairs. It's just much more helpful for inquirers to go a Church and speak to a priest rather then get involved with these places.

And it is true. Meletius IV (Metaxakis) did a lot of damage to the Church.

Logged

"Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody thinks about changing himself."

I've met Greek Old Calendarists in real life and former Greek Old Calendarists who've returned to the faith of the Apostles.And I've met many who came to the True Faith of the Apostles from the world "orthodox" church

Honestly, I wouldn't want to talk to or meet the Greek Old Calendarists on this forum. I also don't care if the host of this site is one, this site could shut down and I wouldn't care.How Christian of you

Greek Old Calendarists are schismatics, they are uncanonical and they are apostates because they've abandoned the church.freemason Metaxakis is the schismatic who abandoned God in exchange for his vision of a one world religion, he prayed with Anglicans, Catholics, even many non-Christians and not because of the request of a personal friend, but because he wanted the Masonic one world religion, if ones bishop is a heretic than one is also a heretic.

And don't give me that stupid bull about that so-called "miracle" that was supposedly in support of the schismatics.The "orthodox" government of Greece decided to "get rid of" the "schismatics" and sent police officers to a prayer service in honor of the Elevation of the Holy Cross to arrest and prosecute us (many since, have been killed) and on the night, all of them witnessed this miracle and many of the officers converted that night, is this some satanic optical illusion?

The idea that the New Calendar is an innovation or that our Bishops of Ecumenism is an idea that shows one to be dumber than a rock and is an idea that is not even worth a passing thought.Where is your evidence that the new calendar is not an innovation? Secondly, where is your evidence that the so-called "orthodox" church is not involved in the ecumenist pan-heresy?

If ones bishop is a heretic then one is also a heretic? I don't know what churches ecclesiology that is, but that certainly isn't Orthodox ecclesiology.

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Protestants and Catholics all have "miracles", nothing makes the Greek Old Calendarist's "miracle" any more real or special than theirs.

We've got the Holy Fire, and many other wonders.

You're the idiots that have to prove were wrong and you've all failed to do so. You'd rather sit around in a schismatic LANGUAGE REMOVED declaring us as innovators and ecumenists. As far as Im concerned, y'all can stay in your little language removed for content by username! sectiom moderator and stay outside of the true Church. We have enough extreme-conservative idiots as it is.

You are placed on moderation for 99 days for repeatedly disrespecting other Forum members and for using obscene imagery. If you wish to dispute this, please make sure that you PM me first before going up the chain. Thanks, Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

The only thing I know about my bishop (who is a locum tenans based out of somewhere else) is his name. If I was to find out he was a heretic (and I don’t believe he is and have no reason to worry based on the local presbyters), it would be because I actively went out looking for trouble. The church I attend is fairly “traditional” in that sort of American reconstructed Slavic sense of traditional, and I see no reason to doubt that what we have is the Orthodox faith. We don’t commune non-Orthodox; we don’t host prayer breakfasts with Catholics; none of us are masons or members of whatever nonsense association it is that supposedly invalidates the Mysteries. I will worry about my own salvation. I will worry that when we are able to make it to church my kids are too disruptive. But I will not worry about some false boogyman called “ecumenism” when I see no reason to. I know not because I ask not, and I ask not because I don’t need to know. My salvation, should I receive it, depends on Christ, not an old man in a round hat in the Northeast.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council in Constantinople under St. Photios:

Quote

"For those who separate from communion with their president because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers, when, that is, he preaches heresy to the whole people, and teaches it openly in the church, if such wall themselves off from communion with the above-mentioned bishop before conciliar examination not only are not subject to the penalty laid down by the canons, but are also worthy of the honour befitting the Orthodox. For they have condemned, not bishops, but false-bishops and false-teachers, and they have not sundered the unity of the Church by a schism, but have endeavoured to protect the Church from schisms and divisions."

Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council in Constantinople under St. Photios:

Quote

"For those who separate from communion with their president because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers, when, that is, he preaches heresy to the whole people, and teaches it openly in the church, if such wall themselves off from communion with the above-mentioned bishop before conciliar examination not only are not subject to the penalty laid down by the canons, but are also worthy of the honour befitting the Orthodox. For they have condemned, not bishops, but false-bishops and false-teachers, and they have not sundered the unity of the Church by a schism, but have endeavoured to protect the Church from schisms and divisions."

But does that support the traditionalists or world Orthodoxy? I believe an argument can be made either way...

Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council in Constantinople under St. Photios:

Quote

"For those who separate from communion with their president because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers, when, that is, he preaches heresy to the whole people, and teaches it openly in the church, if such wall themselves off from communion with the above-mentioned bishop before conciliar examination not only are not subject to the penalty laid down by the canons, but are also worthy of the honour befitting the Orthodox. For they have condemned, not bishops, but false-bishops and false-teachers, and they have not sundered the unity of the Church by a schism, but have endeavoured to protect the Church from schisms and divisions."

But does that support the traditionalists or world Orthodoxy? I believe an argument can be made either way...

I see your point but I think it's pretty clearly against world orthodoxy. I mean, while an argument *could* be made [logically] for either side I think its pretty clear saying that if a bishop preaches an unGodly doctrine than we have the right to schism until the Church deposes the bishop, declares him anathema, and then repents. Just for the sake of argument I think the real question is, was our schism justified. IMO if the heresy of heresies was not a justification, I don't know what is.

But was ecumenism a "heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers"? You could argue that certain figures (St. Justin Popovich, etc.) condemned it, that certain Local groups condemned it (1983 anathema of ROCOR), that certain figures supported the old calendarists (St. Nikolai of Serbia), and so forth. But doesn't all this come long after the initial break which is supposed to be the schism? Even if you count Met. Chrysostomos of Florina as a "father" (which I think is a stretch, at best), he and the other bishops didn't break with the state Church until over a decade after the schism was supposed to have happened. I think you could argue that no holy fathers or councils had condemned ecumenism at the point that the old calendar movement started. Perhaps I would not go as far as the synod of Met. Cyprian and say that a council (pan-Orthodox or even ecumenical) was needed to condemn it before the "potential schismatics" because actual ones, but still, I think it's pushing it to argue for traditionalism using the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd.

I also don't think it does much good to appeal to this canon as it relates to the calendar, as a calendar change (especially regarding Pascha) was forbidden, but I'm not sure that you could persuasively argue that this rises to the level of heresy. Admittedly, if memory serves, there did seem to be some calendar issues in the early Church that seemed to be dealt with as a heresy (quartodecimans?), but I'm not sure that that's the case here*. The best route that I can see is demonstrating that the Fathers and/or Councils condemned the pan-heresy (or "heresy of heresies") of ecumenism, but I don't know what kind of case can be made for that (and I've read the various materials--translated/published in English, anyway). Perhaps I am protesting too much, or perhaps I am rambling; I just remain unconvinced.

*I'm leaving aside the sticky issue of Finland, and possibly other local groups and their changes.

But was ecumenism a "heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers"? You could argue that certain figures (St. Justin Popovich, etc.) condemned it, that certain Local groups condemned it (1983 anathema of ROCOR), that certain figures supported the old calendarists (St. Nikolai of Serbia), and so forth. But doesn't all this come long after the initial break which is supposed to be the schism? Even if you count Met. Chrysostomos of Florina as a "father" (which I think is a stretch, at best), he and the other bishops didn't break with the state Church until over a decade after the schism was supposed to have happened. I think you could argue that no holy fathers or councils had condemned ecumenism at the point that the old calendar movement started. Perhaps I would not go as far as the synod of Met. Cyprian and say that a council (pan-Orthodox or even ecumenical) was needed to condemn it before the "potential schismatics" because actual ones, but still, I think it's pushing it to argue for traditionalism using the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd.

I also don't think it does much good to appeal to this canon as it relates to the calendar, as a calendar change (especially regarding Pascha) was forbidden, but I'm not sure that you could persuasively argue that this rises to the level of heresy. Admittedly, if memory serves, there did seem to be some calendar issues in the early Church that seemed to be dealt with as a heresy (quartodecimans?), but I'm not sure that that's the case here*. The best route that I can see is demonstrating that the Fathers and/or Councils condemned the pan-heresy (or "heresy of heresies") of ecumenism, but I don't know what kind of case can be made for that (and I've read the various materials--translated/published in English, anyway). Perhaps I am protesting too much, or perhaps I am rambling; I just remain unconvinced.

*I'm leaving aside the sticky issue of Finland, and possibly other local groups and their changes.

Canon 45 of the Apostles

Quote

If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.

Not only was Patriarch Metaxakis involved with ecumenism but he was also a Freemason supported by other Freemasons. They have their own god (whom they call, "the great architect"), their own scriptures, their own rituals, even their own priests. He was clearly not a Christian, and the rest of the church at the time failed to do their job. But Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail, and they didn't, Orthodoxy still exists which in-and-of itself is a miracle.

God Bless you. I'm not trying to be polemical, there really isn't another way to say that.

You are given seven-day warning for failing to use a title for a clergyman. I put in the correct title for you. PLease do not repeat this violation of our rules. Thanks, Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

But was ecumenism a "heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers"? You could argue that certain figures (St. Justin Popovich, etc.) condemned it, that certain Local groups condemned it (1983 anathema of ROCOR), that certain figures supported the old calendarists (St. Nikolai of Serbia), and so forth. But doesn't all this come long after the initial break which is supposed to be the schism? Even if you count Met. Chrysostomos of Florina as a "father" (which I think is a stretch, at best), he and the other bishops didn't break with the state Church until over a decade after the schism was supposed to have happened. I think you could argue that no holy fathers or councils had condemned ecumenism at the point that the old calendar movement started. Perhaps I would not go as far as the synod of Met. Cyprian and say that a council (pan-Orthodox or even ecumenical) was needed to condemn it before the "potential schismatics" because actual ones, but still, I think it's pushing it to argue for traditionalism using the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd.

I also don't think it does much good to appeal to this canon as it relates to the calendar, as a calendar change (especially regarding Pascha) was forbidden, but I'm not sure that you could persuasively argue that this rises to the level of heresy. Admittedly, if memory serves, there did seem to be some calendar issues in the early Church that seemed to be dealt with as a heresy (quartodecimans?), but I'm not sure that that's the case here*. The best route that I can see is demonstrating that the Fathers and/or Councils condemned the pan-heresy (or "heresy of heresies") of ecumenism, but I don't know what kind of case can be made for that (and I've read the various materials--translated/published in English, anyway). Perhaps I am protesting too much, or perhaps I am rambling; I just remain unconvinced.

*I'm leaving aside the sticky issue of Finland, and possibly other local groups and their changes.

Canon 45 of the Apostles

Quote

If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.

Not only was Metaxakis involved with ecumenism but he was also a Freemason supported by other Freemasons. They have their own god (whom they call, "the great architect"), their own scriptures, their own rituals, even their own priests. He was clearly not a Christian, and the rest of the church at the time failed to do their job. But Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail, and they didn't, Orthodoxy still exists which in-and-of itself is a miracle.

God Bless you. I'm not trying to be polemical, there really isn't another way to say that.

Are you referring to Patriarch Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople? Please note that this is an official question and I would appreciate a prompt reply. Thanks, Carl Kraeff

Not only was Patriarch Metaxakis involved with ecumenism but he was also a Freemason supported by other Freemasons. They have their own god (whom they call, "the great architect"), their own scriptures, their own rituals, even their own priests. He was clearly not a Christian, and the rest of the church at the time failed to do their job.

Not that this would make me change my Orthodox alignment, but I have oft seen this particular accusation bandied about without ever a citation or even photo to back it up.

Considering the nature of the charge, you'd think the polemicists would be more than forthcoming with the evidence.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Not only was Patriarch Metaxakis involved with ecumenism but he was also a Freemason supported by other Freemasons. They have their own god (whom they call, "the great architect"), their own scriptures, their own rituals, even their own priests. He was clearly not a Christian, and the rest of the church at the time failed to do their job.

Not that this would make me change my Orthodox alignment, but I have oft seen this particular accusation bandied about without ever a citation or even photo to back it up.

Considering the nature of the charge, you'd think the polemicists would be more than forthcoming with the evidence.

the Greek Masonic Lodge claim they have evidence (papers signed by him) that he was a member.

Not only was Patriarch Metaxakis involved with ecumenism but he was also a Freemason supported by other Freemasons. They have their own god (whom they call, "the great architect"), their own scriptures, their own rituals, even their own priests. He was clearly not a Christian, and the rest of the church at the time failed to do their job.

Not that this would make me change my Orthodox alignment, but I have oft seen this particular accusation bandied about without ever a citation or even photo to back it up.

Considering the nature of the charge, you'd think the polemicists would be more than forthcoming with the evidence.

the Greek Masonic Lodge claim they have evidence (papers signed by him) that he was a member.

Funny thing about Masons is that they will claim anyone of historic significance as their own.

I am not interested in claims.

I am not saying the patriarch wasn't ultimately a mason (like I said, it's not going to change my alignment), but I haven't seen any evidence he was.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 09:02:07 AM by Agabus »

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Not only was Patriarch Metaxakis involved with ecumenism but he was also a Freemason supported by other Freemasons. They have their own god (whom they call, "the great architect"), their own scriptures, their own rituals, even their own priests. He was clearly not a Christian, and the rest of the church at the time failed to do their job.

Not that this would make me change my Orthodox alignment, but I have oft seen this particular accusation bandied about without ever a citation or even photo to back it up.

Considering the nature of the charge, you'd think the polemicists would be more than forthcoming with the evidence.

the Greek Masonic Lodge claim they have evidence (papers signed by him) that he was a member.

Masons also claim Pythagoras, Shakespeare, and pretty much anyone who did anything remotely interesting.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake